Persians: Kardakes

[wowgetoffyourcellphone 6.222]

3 hours ago, Nescio said:

Speaking of which, I also think 0 A.D.'s interpretation of the kardakes is wrong (but that belongs to another thread).

 

Let's discuss, shall we? 

 

 

 

[Lion.Kanzen 4.685]

@Nescio @fatherbushido

[fatherbushido 662]

I am not competent enough in history to conclude about them.

In Empire Ascendant, I wonder if they fit in the unit roaster. Moreover, are they actually mercenaries?

In the new edition of *Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars* of Duncan Head (which is imo a good reading between casual reading and academic reading), he pointed some corrections about what he wrote in the last one.

See an extract from page 11 here:

https://books.google.fr/books?id=-7n8CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA11&hl=fr&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false

In my opinion they should be kept for scenarios. (But that's just a quick opinion)

Also the building where they are built is a bit confusing and of lower quality than other buildings.

(And there are a lot of marvelous forgotten skirmishes and scenarios map)

Edited May 4, 2020 by fatherbushido

[Nescio 1.482]

For a decent (and recent) discussion of the “kardakes”, I highly recommend: https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.jstor.org/stable/41722251

14 minutes ago, fatherbushido said:

In the new edition of *Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars* of Duncan Head (which is imo a good reading between casual reading and academic reading), he pointed some corrections about what he wrote in the last one.

Whilst it may be quite useful for hobbyists (the images certainly look nice), the problem with the work of Duncan Head is that's not always clear what's actually supported by sources and what's his own interpretation.

[fatherbushido 662]

4 minutes ago, Nescio said:

For a decent (and recent) discussion of the “kardakes”, I highly recommend: https://sci-hub.tw/http://www.jstor.org/stable/41722251

The start of the paper seems clear for a novice like me, but as many papers it's so expensive if you don't have an access... So now we are teased, sum it up please!

6 minutes ago, Nescio said:

the problem with the work of Duncan Head

Yes I put some kind of disclaimer...

[Nescio 1.482]

21 minutes ago, fatherbushido said:

The start of the paper seems clear for a novice like me, but as many papers it's so expensive if you don't have an access...

Click on the entire link; sci-hub was created to help people without university library subscriptions. (The alternative, locating and contacting authors, tends to be highly time-consuming.) Paying for individual publications is inadvisable.

21 minutes ago, fatherbushido said:

So now we are teased, sum it up please!

From the article in question:

V. Conclusion
In sum, the κάρδακες must remain somewhat enigmatic. Despite our effort to reconcile often conflicting source traditions, establishing a firm view is predicated on assigning greater validity to some pieces of information. Rather than supporting the belief that the κάρδακες were light infantry, the evidence indicates that they are better understood, in the main, as general-purpose infantry, though it is not impossible that the term could refer to other troop-types,[75] as one interpretation of Xen. Oec. 4.5-6 might suggest. Their deployment at Issus suggests that they were expected to take their place on either side of the Greek mercenary heavy infantry, the possible replacements of the ἀθάνατοι, and were therefore not acting as light infantry. These circumstances are what presumably prompted Arrian to describe the κάρδακες as ὁπλῖται, even if they did not exactly correspond, in their combat role, to the more usual modern interpretations of the term.[76] That Arrian provides the only extant account of the κάρδακες in battle means that it is simply not possible to draw any watertight conclusions about their role, but is arguably enough to affirm that they were not merely untrained recruits, as one interpretation of Strabo would have it, and not exclusively Thracian-style peltasts. The question of ethnicity, however, is more difficult to resolve. They were possibly of mixed ethnic origin as per Briant,[77] but were likely to have been commanded by Persians, to be used when circumstances demanded, as is possibly indicated by Xenophon (Oec. 4.5-6).

Edited May 4, 2020 by Nescio
conclusion

[Genava55 1.176]

You can register for free on jstor and have some access each month.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone 6.222]

Yeah can u guys sum it up for me? I am thinking I can cobble together a more accurate representation using the game's current assets. 

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded 603]

Given Nescio's argument, it seems valid to potentially scrap the unit due to the ambiguities surrounding its use.  If we want the Persians to be represented fielding hoplites, there were ample examples of that in simply recruiting Greek mercenaries.  The most famous one that comes to mind is the employment of Memnon of Rhodes and his men during Alexander's campaign. 

[Nescio 1.482]

Yes, the Persians did use large numbers of Greek mercenary hoplites. However, the kardakes were neither Greeks, nor armed in Greek fashion, and not champions; whether they were ethnic Persians,  Iranians, or a multi-ethnic mixed force cannot be determined, nor whether they were a standing force, mercenaries, or a war-time levy. Because the immortals only appear in Herodotus and the kardakes primarily in Arrian, the latter might have been a replacement of the latter; in any case, both fought as heavy (i.e. melee) infantry.

Anyway, given how problematic 0 A.D.'s version of the kardakes is, I support removing them from the current Persian roster.

[fatherbushido 662]

One could perhaps make a scenario map "Issus" where we would use the current models?

(in DE for example)

I remember @Mythos_Ruler was making such maps 10 years ago.

[Lion.Kanzen 4.685]

4 hours ago, fatherbushido said:

One could perhaps make a scenario map "Issus" where we would use the current models?

(in DE for example)

I remember @Mythos_Ruler was making such maps 10 years ago.

And drawing, lol , maybe 'Wow' can do the same.

[Ultimate Aurelian 317]

12 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

Given Nescio's argument, it seems valid to potentially scrap the unit due to the ambiguities surrounding its use.  If we want the Persians to be represented fielding hoplites, there were ample examples of that in simply recruiting Greek mercenaries.  The most famous one that comes to mind is the employment of Memnon of Rhodes and his men during Alexander's campaign. 

Maybe some Anatolian Greeks ? I feel they are a bit overlooked.

@wowgetoffyourcellphone For DE (Who has both Greek and Kardakes hoplites), you could keep the Greek hoplite and replace the Kardakes with a Ionian/Phoenician marine mercenary (pictures bellow are a bit speculative):

 

 

Edited May 5, 2020 by Ultimate Aurelian

[Lion.Kanzen 4.685]

45 minutes ago, Ultimate Aurelian said:

Maybe some Anatolian Greeks ? I feel they are a bit overlooked.

@wowgetoffyourcellphone

 

 

 

 

Esta interesante ese escudo. El diseño.

[Ultimate Aurelian 317]

4 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

Esta interesante ese escudo. El diseño.

https://www.theoi.com/Ther/HusKlazomenaios.html

Quote

Aelian, On Animals 12. 38 (trans. Scholfield) (Greek natural history C2nd A.D.) :
"I have heard that on Klazomenai (Clazomenae) [an island west of Smyrna] there was a sow with wings, and it ravaged the territory of Klazomenai. And Artemon records this in his Annals of Klazomenai. That is why there is a spot named and celebrated as ‘The Place of the Winged Sow,’ and it is famous. But if anyone regards this as myth, let him do so."

[Nescio 1.482]

https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2742